Texas Snubs World Court on Execution Stays

[KrazyHorse]

It's not about the World Court; it's about the fact that you guys consistently violate consular protection treaties that you signed in good faith and that the rest of the First World abide by fairly stringently.

[TheStinger]

How much do americans kick off when their citizens are tried in foreign courts and aren't give access to decent defence lawyers

[CerberusIV]

Presumably (if the US can get hold of them) Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein will be tried in Texas?

[TheStinger]

It would be intersting to see what would happen if the UK got hold Bin Laden. UK law prevents extradition in cases where teh death penalty is likley

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Unfortunately this is true, but Imran raised a good point that a treaty to create a World Court doesn't necessarily mean a treaty to abide by its decisions.

The question is, should the US abide by international laws all the time, or only when it is advantagous to do so?

[axi]

It would be intersting to see what would happen if the UK got hold Bin Laden. UK law prevents extradition in cases where teh death penalty is likley

They would send him to the penal colonies, for life. Australia and NZ, Binnie's coming to stay!

[Capt Dizle]

Hey, whether or not Texas violated someone's rights or not, it's a State's Rights issue. Texas can and should do what it thinks best and no so called world court should ever have any authority over an American court. Not even traffic court.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Hey, whether or not Texas violated someone's rights or not, it's a State's Rights issue. Texas can and should do what it thinks best and no so called world court should ever have any authority over an American court. Not even traffic court.

What if you sign a treaty saying just that.

Maritime courts have authority over Texas I think.

Texas courts will use the decisons of other common law systems to influence their decisions.

[Capt Dizle]

Any action by the Federal government that would require any state court to bow to international interest would have to be unconstitutional, if not, the constitution means nothing.

[TheStinger]

So Texas wouldn't extradite suspected murderes to the UK

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by TheStinger


What if you sign a treaty saying just that.

Maritime courts have authority over Texas I think.

Texas courts will use the decisons of other common law systems to influence their decisions.

Texas may yield volutarily to maritime law but none has authority over the state. Even if it says so in black and white somewhere, it is a jackbboot law and should not be obeyed.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Texas may yield volutarily to maritime law but none has authority over the state. Even if it says so in black and white somewhere, it is a jackbboot law and should not be obeyed.

My mistake Teaxs is of course part of a different reality to the rest of the world

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Any action by the Federal government that would require any state court to bow to international interest would have to be unconstitutional, if not, the constitution means nothing.

Doesn't this occur anytime the Federal government signs a treaty with another country?

Is there a treaty signed by the US government which explicitly requires that the government of Mexico be informed when their citizens are arrested or under trial? Which treaty specifies this?

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Is there a treaty signed by the US government which explicitly requires that the government of Mexico be informed when their citizens are arrested or under trial? Which treaty specifies this?

I thought this was every countires responsibility a bit like the Geneva convention

[SlowwHand]

Laws are laws, no matter where you call home.